Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town staff outlines six-point plan to speed and improve Leesburg site-plan reviews
Summary
The town’s Community Development director described a six-point plan to improve the site-plan process after interviews with local developers and engineers. Recommendations include updating regulatory documents, better intake checklists, an expedited-review option and organizational changes such as an ombudsperson.
The Town of Leesburg’s Community Development director presented a six-point program on Oct. 2 to improve the site-plan review process, responding to feedback from local developers and engineers that the town’s review can be slower and more uncertain than peer jurisdictions.
Why it matters: many projects reach the site-plan stage after rezoning and must clear engineering, utilities and technical reviews before construction. Faster and more predictable site-plan review can reduce development cost and time, but it requires clear checklists, internal coordination and, in some cases, updates to regulatory documents.
What staff reported The director said staff interviewed 12 practitioners (six engineers, six developers) and compiled about 390 comments, which were grouped into common themes. Staff concluded that the town’s technical reviewers are knowledgeable and accessible but that commenters seek clearer, modernized regulatory documents, earlier certainty, and fewer redundant review steps.
The six areas staff will pursue: 1) Update regulatory documents: continue the Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM) and zoning rewrite work; seek funding to update subdivision/land-development regulations. 2) Behavior and culture: shorten comment letters to focus on critical items and encourage solutions-oriented reviews. 3) Organizational strategy: evaluate staffing and consider an ombudsperson to help applicants navigate the process from inception to occupation and identify opportunities to run steps concurrently. 4) Change the narrative: document successes, provide education on state or federal requirements, and conduct a satisfaction survey following reviews. 5) Quality applications and intake: raise intake standards and checklists; reject low-quality submissions to meet shortened statutory review timeframes. 6) Pilot an expedited-review program: explore models where applicants submit a pre-application package, agree to a timeline and receive accelerated review for qualifying projects.
Staff said it presented an informational memo to the town council in September and will return to council in December with recommended process improvements. The director asked for ongoing stakeholder engagement with the planning commission as staff refines proposals.
Quotations "Our technical staff is very knowledgeable and accessible," the director said, summarizing interview feedback. "We got about 390 comments. I rolled those up into themes, and that's what you see on the pie chart here."
Ending Staff plans to deliver formal recommendations to the town council in December and will continue to consult with the planning commission during implementation planning.
